Can Radar Be Used to Map Distant Planets?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Vinni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radar
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the feasibility of using radar to map distant rocky exoplanets, exploring the theoretical and practical limitations of such an approach. It encompasses technical reasoning, signal propagation challenges, and comparisons with existing technologies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose the use of powerful k band radar signals to bounce off rocky exoplanets for mapping purposes.
  • Others argue that the distances involved make it impractical due to issues with signal strength, resolution, and the time required to receive radar echoes.
  • One participant highlights the astronomical power output required for radar signals to reach distant planets, noting that the radar radiation would spread out as it propagates.
  • Concerns are raised about the finite speed of light, with estimates suggesting an 8-year round trip for signals to the closest star and around 20 years for the nearest exoplanet.
  • Participants discuss the size of the radar dish needed, with one suggesting that interferometry could help reduce the size by using multiple smaller dishes, but still noting the high costs involved.
  • Another participant mentions the concept of radar cross-section and how the orientation and material of the target could significantly affect the amount of radar energy reflected back.
  • One participant questions whether a MASER could be a more efficient approach if sufficient power could be generated.
  • Comparisons are made to lunar laser ranging experiments, noting the minimal amount of light returned even from retroreflectors placed on the moon.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that using radar to map distant planets is not feasible due to significant technical challenges, but there is no consensus on the specifics of the limitations or potential alternative approaches.

Contextual Notes

Limitations discussed include the dependence on signal strength, radar cross-section, and the immense power requirements, as well as the unresolved mathematical calculations regarding the feasibility of receiving radar signals from such distances.

Vinni
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Would it be possible to use a very powerful k band radar signal to bounce off one of the rocky planets discovered orbiting other stars? If that is possible could we use it to build a radar map of the planet?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Those planets/stars are much too far away for that to be possible, in terms of signal strength, resolution and length of time to hear the return radar echo.
 
1. The power output required would be astronomical since the radiation from the radar would spread out as it propagates.
2. The speed of light is finite. The closest star to us would be an 8 year round trip for the radar. The nearest exoplanet would be around 20 years.
3. The size of the dish would be enormous, however interferometry may be able to reduce the size by using multiple smaller dishes. Either way it would be incredibly expensive.

The sort version is that it simply isn't feasible.
 
russ_watters said:
Those planets/stars are much too far away for that to be possible, in terms of signal strength, resolution and length of time to hear the return radar echo.

Heh, imagine walking into a cave and yelling "ECHO", and having to come back 20 years later to hear it. It would make for a great family event!
 
Drakkith said:
Heh, imagine walking into a cave and yelling "ECHO", and having to come back 20 years later to hear it. It would make for a great family event!

I understand that it would take years to get the echo back, but I was thinking about how much power it would take to make possible? Also would a MASER be more efficient approach? I mean if one could generate the power?
 
Last edited:
Just one more reason bouncing radar off a rocky exoplanet is not a viable idea: every radar target has a "target strength" based on its reflectivity and orientation. For example, if a transmitted radar pulse strikes an aircraft carrier "broadside" then lots of RF energy would be reflected back to the radar for detection. If, however, in that same setup if the carrier is orientated "bow on" much less energy would be reflected because the "radar cross-section" is smaller. Then there is the material itself: stealth technology uses materials that do not reflect RF well, like a rocky exoplanet.
 
Vinni said:
I understand that it would take years to get the echo back, but I was thinking about how much power it would take to make possible? Also would a MASER be more efficient approach? I mean if one could generate the power?

Using standard radar cross section math, and assuming I did it correctly, a 1 megawatt radar signal sent from a dish the size of the Arecibo Radio Telescope to an Earth sized planet 10 light years out would receive 2.6x10^-46 watts back. That's about 40 orders of magnitude less than what you would need to effectively see the target. That's a trillion trillion billion billion billion billion times less than what you would need.
 
For comparason, lasers can be fired at mirrored arrays (retro reflectors) placed on the moon back in the 1960's and 1970's. Only a very small amount of light is returned. Even though these mirror arrays are small compared to the size of a distant planet, I assume the subtended angle for a mirror array on the moon is much greater than a large planet 20 light years away from the earth.

http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/Moons/TheMoon/Retroreflectors.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 148 ·
5
Replies
148
Views
13K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K